Streisand Effect Still Works: Vancouver Roofing Company Hit With Negative Reviews After Suing Over A Negative Review

from the how-do-you-not-expect-this? dept

Last week, KGW8 had an incredible story about how a couple in Vancouver, Washington were sued after leaving a 1-star review for Executive Roof Services (ERS). The defendants in the lawsuit, Autumn Knepper and Adam Marsh, were (reasonably!) annoyed about the treatment they received from the firm after their landlord had asked ERS to check out the roof to the house, after the couple found it leaking. The experience they had with ERS was not great:

Knepper said she called the office and talked with the receptionist, who she said was rude from the time she answered the phone.

?She refused to give me any information. She said I would have to get it from the landlord. I asked to speak with the manager and she laughed at me. She told me I was verbally abusing her and that she was the office manager. She hung up on me,? said Knepper.

Marsh said he called ERS and had a similar bad experience with the woman who answered the phone.

?She was just super rude, told me that she was office manager and there was no one else I could talk to and hung up on me,? said Marsh.

So they each wrote a 1-star review on Google explaining what happened. Apparently, the owner of ERS, Michael Mecham, didn’t take kindly to all of this. Again, according to KGW8:

?He told me that he knew where I lived. He said he had forensics guy and that he would gladly spend a hundred thousand dollars suing me,? said Knepper.

Knepper said the owner texted her and said the review needed to be taken down before ?more damages are done.?

Knepper said she called the police, which led to an officer asking Mecham to no longer contact the couple.

?We thought that was the end of it,? said Knepper.

But, instead, they were sued for defamation (the lawsuit was filed in Clark County, and it appears that the documents for the lawsuit are not readily available online or we’d include them here). The lawyer for ERS, David Bowser… um… doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about. He first told a reporter from KGW that it wasn’t about the review… and then seemed to immediately admit it was about the review:

Bowser said the couple did not hire ERS, the landlord did. Because of that he said they weren?t entitled to the information they requested — a project report and timeline — because they were not customers or clients of ERS. This is part of our exchange when we asked Bowser about the suit:

Cristin Severance, KGW: “Whether they’re paying customers or not, shouldn’t they be entitled to write about their experience? They said the receptionist was rude.”

David Bowser, attorney: “It depends why they did that. If they were doing it merely to express their opinion, that’s what other customers have done in the past. I don’t have an issue with that. ERS doesn’t have an issue with that. But when you cross the line and you use this forum to cause intentional harm to a family-owned business and hurt them and their employees and their business, you’ve crossed the line.”

Severance: “How did they intentionally harm ERS by writing about a rude receptionist?”

Bowser: “They intentionally harmed ERS by posting one-star reviews for the purpose of getting a report they weren’t entitled to.”

That’s… not how any of this works. At all. They have every right to write a review about their experience. Bowser seems particularly clueless about SLAPP suits. Washington just passed a new anti-SLAPP law, though technically it didn’t go into effect until this weekend. But Bowser should maybe learn what that means:

Bowser argues this is not a SLAPP filing.

Bowser: ?That is not what a SLAPP lawsuit is, a SLAPP is a motion. This is a lawsuit. The lawsuit asserts claims for defamation and for intentional interference with business expectancies,? said Bowser.

Wut? The “L” in SLAPP stands for lawsuit, guy. And this is a classic SLAPP. It’s a lawsuit over obviously protected speech, and was clearly filed to try to silence Knepper and Marsh. When the reporter asked Bowser how is this not trying to silence someone, Bowser responded that this was “not something that they legitimately had a basis to give an opinion on.” And, again, this is not how anything works. You get to give your opinion on anything you want. I get to give my opinion on this lawsuit — which is one of the SLAPPiest SLAPP suits I’ve seen in a long time. You don’t get to unilaterally declare that they can’t give their opinion.

But, of course, even more incredible is that, here, the lawyer for ERS has now admitted that it was their opinion. And, I mean, you don’t need to be even a terrible lawyer to know that opinions are not defamatory.

Either way, it’s not difficult to see what happened next. KGW8 is reporting that the owner of ERS says he had to take down his website after receiving a ton of 1-star reviews. Not that anyone should condone leaving made up 1-star reviews, but how the hell did neither he nor his foolish lawyer realize how this was going to end up?

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: executive roof services

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Streisand Effect Still Works: Vancouver Roofing Company Hit With Negative Reviews After Suing Over A Negative Review”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'That's not how you tank our company, THIS is how you do it!'

‘We don’t believe they had a legitimate reason to tell people what a terrible company we are and what horrible customer service we offered so we went ahead and provided them a reason and gave them all the motivation they needed to make it as public as possible so everyone would know to stay as far away from us as possible.’

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Define “legitimate”. I would argue that if a service affects more than just the direct customers, other to-be-beneficiaries’ reviews are valid.

For example, say that Person/Company A manufactures their products (Product X) using a product (Product Y) sold by Company B. Person C then purchases Product X, but the internal Product Y fails. Even though Person C was not a direct customer of Company B, C still has a legitimate complaint about B’s product as the end-user.

More relevantly for this case, say that a Hotel A hires maids from some Provider B to provide room service, and Person C stays at Hotel A for a few days and makes use of that room service. C can still post a review of B based upon the services of the maids at A. C was not a direct customer of B but of A, but C still benefited from a service that B provides and had direct contact with employees of B, so that review would be legitimate.

Finally, and even more relevantly, a review of a company is a review of that company, not just some particular service or good that they provide, and speaking with people over the phone—be they customer or beneficiary or prospective customer—can be considered a service they provide. While the landlord was the user of the service involving fixing the home, the reviewers here were users of the Customer-Service service provided by that exact same company, and that’s what they were reviewing. As such, it would still be a legitimate review.

To be clear, assuming that the company actually does have such a policy, it’s fine that they refused to give the couple any of the information—at least directly—as they were not the direct customer who enlisted the company. But that wasn’t what the complaint was about. The complaint was about the treatment they received, not the refusal to turn over the requested information.

ECA (profile) says:

I dont want to laugh

Tons of 1 stars?
And to solve it, all they had to do would have been to respond to a few of them an apologize? OR explain the problem?

These were renters?
They have lives and would love to know Where and how long they would be doing a job? You arnt leaving the house OPEN to anyone, no matter how honest they may be. And leaving the roof open gives access to anyone that has a Nail puller.

Be nice and tell them they need to ask the landlord, as they cant discuss any contract info.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I dont want to laugh

In the alternative, the receptionist ^H^H^H office manager could have told them to have the landlord forward permission to the roofers to actually, y’know, discuss the issue with [list of renters].

Concerns about privacy can be waived by those whose privacy might be affected.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Commence to facepalmin’.

I don’t know who to feel worse for: the business owner, who thought suing over a bad review was a good idea; or the lawyer hired to file the lawsuit, who lost a case and ruined his own career in the span of a single interview.

…oh wait, they’re both shitheads. I’m free to partake in some schadenfreude!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Commence to facepalmin’.

or the lawyer hired to file the lawsuit, who lost a case and ruined his own career in the span of a single interview

I dunno about that – seems like he’s defining himself as one who will file cases he knows are bullshit. And there certainly is a market for simple-minded rubes who would hire him in an instant to get themselves fleeced…I mean, have their ‘cases’ heard.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Eric says:

So easy to fix this initially...

Its amazing how all of this could have been so easily avoided and fixed…Owner of ERS: "Hey Adam and Autumn, just saw the review you left and want to express how sorry I am for the experience you had, I spoke with our office manager to make sure this doesn’t happen again. It is our policy, though, to only share the details with the customer. I’ll reach out to your landlord to see if we can send it your way, if not, then it would be best for you to connect with the landlord for the information" … I’m guessing after that most people would modify or at least edit their review. How do people not know how to fix these things?!

tin-foil-hat says:

Re: So easy to fix this initially...

Even if they didn’t revise the rating/review, a response like that shows that the business cares.

Most reasonable people accept that a business will have some negative reviews. You can’t please everyone.

Acting like an asshole usually ends up with the predictable outcome. They brought it on themselves.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: So easy to fix this initially...

I’m willing to believe the "office manager" told the owner a much different story about how these people berated her & made her cry.
I’m guessing she is some family members stupid child who thinks she has the power & well she claimed they were the mean ones so the family pride took over & now they are going to be paying a couple they sued for wasting their time & watching their entire business sink because Becki the office manager decided to power trip rather than just be polite.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

According to Washington State Jury instructions I found on Westlaw:

To recover on a claim of tortious interference with business [relationship] [or] [expectancy],(name of plaintiff)has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:
(1) That at the time of the conduct at issue,(name of plaintiff)had a business [relationship] [or] [expectancy] with a probability of future economic benefit for(name of plaintiff);
(2) That(name of defendant)knew of the existence of that business [relationship] [or] [expectancy];
(3) That(name of defendant)intentionally induced or caused the termination of the business [relationship] [or] [expectancy];
(4) That(name of defendant)’s interference was for an improper purpose or by improper means, as defined later in these instructions; and
(5) That the conduct of(name of defendant)was a proximate cause of damages to(name of plaintiff).

I consider it extremely unlikely that ERS can meet that burden.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

To answer the parting question of how they didn’t know their lawsuit would just result in the Streisand effect kicking in… Here is a simple fact. Assholes tend to live in relatively isolated bubbles. They are by their nature insulated from criticism and surrounded by praise and thus can’t really cope like most reasonable human beings would other than getting really offended and grossly overreacting.

jvbattlewood (profile) says:

Foregoing the obvious stupidity of the lawsuit and the Trump U. lawyer.
The website is currently up and they still have a 4 star+ rating on Google.
I get the impression that all is not as it seems in ERS land.
Smells just a bit like someone is desperate for about $112,000
for ( fill in the blank) and Bowser, like his Nintendo namesake,
is only too happy to do something potentially unethical for the right cut.
Of course, that’s just my constitutionally protected opinion.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Re:

[executive roof services] still have a 4 star+ rating on Google

Certainly one would wonder about whether Google handles paid advertising for Executive Roof Services, or whether they have other motivation.

It is hard to believe that a company so bad that they have to sue over what appear to be accurate 1-star reviews actually deserve to have a 4-star rating. However, some rating services may skew the ratings, possibly in hopes of increased advertising revenue. I am speculating here and have no actual data concerning Google’s rating services beyond the report quoted above.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

While Yelp may not be universally good, I’ve found that looking at how a business responds to terrible reviews is more valuable than the actual reviews. A business who responds to negative reviews with a positive response is probably a good place to spend money. If the business responds with anger and denial steer clear.

My only similar experience was a used car dealer who made non-specific threats about my truthful and specific complaints. I told him if he sent me one more message I was going to submit our entire conversation to the attorney general’s office consumer complaint form and I never heard from him again. The review remains up 8 years later.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Steve says:

Nitpick through the state bar regs and file a complaint on the lawyer. I know a guy who filed one over poor punctuation for "Lack of due dillgence". Since the lawyer continued contact with him he filed another complaint alleging the lawyer was attempting to intimidate him into dropping his original complaint. Then he wrote numerous negative reviews on the lawyer saying the lawyer had state bar complaints, which was now true. The lawyer ultimately resigned as the other party’s counsel because it just wasnt worth the hassle.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »